US Elections 2012 Part II: The Conventions, Debates and Election results

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Notices

Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

They believe that American should be on top and stay on top of the international pecking order. The difference of opinion between them seems to be in foreign policy. Most I talk to are of the isolationist type that want to end globalization, bring back out forces to US soil, and basically let the world solve its own regional problems without us getting involved anymore. While they might respect Israel, they see them as being able to handle the local Arabs on their own without us.

These tend to be Vietnam veterans or those of similar age or children of same. (mostly male, but some female).

That or the "Big Stick" policy variant. Leave us alone and we will be generally quiet. Get on our nerves and we send in a Task Group to ease our nerves. Blow up our people or stuff, we send in the Marines and the Army. Touch our soil with threat of invasion...your cities will be glassed. We keep the biggest sticks for those that do us harm. Otherwise, Gunboat Diplomacy.

I haven't encountered many who fit with either of the two views you've written about. The ones I've heard (who may be the most vocal, or just those who are echoing Romney) seem to think that we need to be asserting "American power" everywhere. If we're not there, we're not able to exert our influence, we're less able to make things go in our favor, and we're less able to stop evil from happening... or so goes the thinking, from what I can tell.

I can see where that type of thinking would come from. It isn't wrong, either. The more involved we are, the more we have some sort of say in. If we're not there, then other countries may be having a say without us or that doesn't even involve us. Valid concern.

The problem with this type of thinking is that it's not particularly insightful. Would we like it if some other country were all over the place? Don't choose a country that we're strong friends with, like Britain or Israel; choose countries where people are ambivalent or even hostile, like Russia, China, Iran, maybe even Pakistan. Most people would hate it. They'd become incredibly resentful, and probably fearful. I think that's universal among all people.

It's also short-sighted in that we might be getting ourselves out there and involved, but we're generating a lot of ill will toward ourselves in the process. That's bad enough on its own, but we also have to remember that this involvement costs us a lot of money. Can we sustain it? Are we setting ourselves up for foreign relations problems in the future?

But maybe at the crux of it is many Americans' desire to be #1. Even though we're behind many other countries in many metrics, many Americans still cling to this idea that America is the best country on Earth in nearly every measurable area. Where would we be if we reduced our military spending a bit and got out of everyone else's business? China is close to overtaking us as the world's #1 economic power; if we're not out there "fighting evil" and making it known that we're the most important, what will distinguish us from all of the other countries? And if we're just like the rest of them, then what will prevent us from ensuring that we get our way no matter what?

Valid concerns. I happen to think that we've been overstepping our bounds quite badly and that the more civilized thing to do would be to act at the same level as the other world nations, instead of throwing our power around. My guess is that many on "the right" would argue that such a view is stupid, and that since we have the power and we're currently in a position to push other countries around, we should do everything that we can to maintain it. "Might makes right" and all.

There are different kinds of elite rich. Who they support depends on what party's policies do for their corperation/industry/investments. Those that suggest something that will hurt their pocketbook get the boot or the elite changes to th other party who might have a better policy for their needs.

This can hingle on a party's stance on foreign investment verses domestic investment. It could be on foreign policy (in the areas that might effect commerse or the supply sources). Or regulation policies. Or worker relations (Unions). Or even immigration policy.

I haven't encountered many who fit with either of the two views you've written about. The ones I've heard (who may be the most vocal, or just those who are echoing Romney) seem to think that we need to be asserting "American power" everywhere. If we're not there, we're not able to exert our influence, we're less able to make things go in our favor, and we're less able to stop evil from happening... or so goes the thinking, from what I can tell.

Personally, I think America should try to influence the world, there's nothing wrong with this. I think, however, that they need to be more subtle. Putting an Army into Iraq is not exactly subtle.

Facilitating democratic movements, on the other hand, is.

Also, if we look at how America can really spread it's ideals, the best way is to open up. Bring Foreigners to America for an education, let them see how we do things in the west, and why it's so great, and then let them bring those ideas back home. Likewise, we need to get our own people out into the world too. To bring beneficial foreign ideas back here. Furthermore, if more people have experience of being in a foreign country, they'll have a much better grasp of issues in other countries.

For instance, I spent a year on exchange in the US, and it had a big impact on how I thought about things. It confirmed some of my views (gun laws) and changed others (ideas on limited government, now I'm largely in favour, though I favour a less limited government then many americans...), but overall it was highly enlightening. I think this sort of thing should be done more. In fact, I think it should become like a rite of passage. A bit like Apprentices becoming Journeymen and wandering around. People need to see more of the world to get a better understanding. A big problem with America is that most Americans have never been outside America. If they're lucky they've seen Mexico (Canada doesn't count ).

What I see are the ones that want America to be self sufficient. They remember when the US was the manufacturing and agricultural leader on the planet. They want that back. Their foreign policy seems to be to give the world the middle finger outside of have them "Buy USA Products". Basically they want to ignore the rest of the world. Isolationists.

They believe that the only reason the other countries are gaining us is because we gave our stuff away, be in manufactuing to China, or money and debt relief to Europe and Japan. They want the US that existed at the end of World War II. The one that was king of the mountain.

The problem is there isn't just one "they" ... the "they" outsourcing are "transnationals" ... they may be American by birth but they're exploiting the entire planet and I'm not even sure they self-identify as American other than its a nice place to be a corporation lately.

A Pennsylvania judge's decision to block a voter ID law on Tuesday is only the latest in a series of setbacks for new state laws that require voters to show identification before voting.
Voter ID laws have also been turned back in Wisconsin and Texas this year and some others may also not go into effect before the U.S. presidential election just five weeks away.
The fact that tighter voting laws are faring poorly in court was not expected by some legal experts. That's because in 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a voter identification law passed by Indiana, leading many experts to conclude that it would be hard to challenge such laws in court.
Since the last presidential election, some 15 states have passed or tightened legislation requiring people to identify themselves before voting.
Defenders of the laws, mostly Republicans, say the laws are needed to prevent people from fraudulently impersonating registered voters at the election booth. Opponents, mostly Democrats, complain that obtaining identification documents is an undue burden that could disenfranchise the poor, minorities and the elderly.
In its 2008 decision, the Supreme Court found that a 2005 Indiana law requiring voters to identify themselves was not an undue burden.
But in the recent wave of voter ID laws, opponents have successfully marshaled a series of arguments, including showing why the situation in individual states is different from the one in Indiana.

If it costs money, its a poll tax - long held illegal. Identification cards should be paid out of the general budget (tax revenues). They should be easily and quickly obtained or its an obstruction to legal voting, the states have failed on that one too - which is hilarious because vote suppressors are the same people who don't want to fund government activities.
Taking someone OFF the roll and then requiring them to prove they are legit? -- pretty good case for that violating the "innocent til proven guilty" parts of the Constitution. Most of the casesa are turning out quite embarrassing for the suppressors (veterans, long time residents, public figures, etc)

Actual evidence of vote fraud by voters -- almost zero, none, nada.
Evidence of *incompetent* voter roll maintenance? -- a lot, because the conservatives don't want to pay what it costs to do that.
Evidence of vote COUNT fraud at the county level by election commision staff -- substantial in key flippable states, but o look it was the GOP supporters doing that. Oh snap.

Vote suppression is a historically documented tactic used almost exclusively by the conservative "power class" to keep the "rabble" from voting.

Those sorts of groups with be more in line for informing one what it possible or not possible if a President had any intension of starting federal public works, funding for industry to return to US soil, or wanted to advance specific technology fields with federal dollars (like NASA projects). Many of those are long term goal related items. The economy is down now and they political types and their backers are interested in money now an dto continue to have money later. Not much else, save maybe having a country later so they can keep having money.

Because if they break the US, then it is possible they will break their own money sources.